Res Ipso Loquitur

At Tuesday night’s EVT Planning Commission meeting, the facts did eloquently speak for themselves as once again the petitioner for a zoning change at the Pennhurst tract declined to appear or have an authorized representative present. That fact spoke quite loudly.

Vice Chairman Dr. Lester Schwartz opened the meeting with the Pennhurst petition first on the agenda. Noting the absence of the petitioner, questions were raised as to how the matter should proceed.

Township Manager Mary Flagg addressed that concern by advising the commissioners that the BoS had accepted Richard Chakejian’s petition and passed it to the PC for evaluation and recommendations; therefore the PC was obliged to provide its findings to the BoS for their Oct. 5 meeting. She also went on to say that the last revision of the petition supplied by Mr. Chakejian stands as what he wants. The fact speaking here is that the PC is responsible to the BoS and not the landowner.

Lacking a master plan or any proposed specific use of the property from the owner, the commissioners discussed possible zoning for the 87 acres in question.  Commissioner Elaine Milito suggested a neighborhood mixed-use overlay be included, which defines some form of residential development outside of the petitioner’s assertion that only commercial zoning would be possible on the site. Part 26 of the NMU zoning ordinance would need revising, as it is currently only permissible in an HR zone. A new fact speaking.

Her comment was well received by the other commissioners as well as the residents attending the public meeting. Dr. Schwartz pointed out that the topography of the site would have to exclude some of the tract owing to steep sloping, providing some of the open space that any re-zoning would require. Factual analysis of the property.

Commissioner Ed Dracup reiterated his interest about any possible environmental issues, presumably in light of public comments at past PC meetings and Mr. Chakejian’s introductory letter to the petition citing environmental concerns precluding residential development. Here are factual statements raising very serious questions.

Mr. George Reitnour, a long time East Vincent resident and member of the 1994 Comprehensive Plan Task Force, spoke passionately to the need for measured examination of any zoning change, ensuring that it met current needs and future planning. In contrast to his perceived hurry of the BoS to determine this matter, Mr. Reitnour pleaded that the PC cannot possibly agree on what is best for the township without carefully considering all of the factors and their potential consequences. He strongly urged that the commission share his apprehension with the BoS as part of their report.

Still remaining at the top of the list of major concerns of the PC is road access. The commissioners unanimously agreed that any zoning change must address the insufficiency of the access network and seem to be disinclined to allow uses by right that would be inconsistent with the existing access points. One can infer that any final zoning ordinance will include very explicit requirements for traffic studies prior to approval of any use by right or conditional use. The three roads leading to the property are long standing facts observed by many and ignored by some.

Mr. Nathaniel Guest presented a letter to the PC from Mr. John Andrew Gallery, Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. The letter described the efforts of a partnership with the Pennhurst Memorial and Preservation Alliance and in cooperation with the property owner, Mr. Chakejian.

With that letter was a description of a possible re-purposing of eleven of the existing buildings at the site for 250 units of market supportable apartment rental space. Prepared by the Community Design Collaborative of Philadelphia and Urban Partners, the proposal goes into the detail of site and financing, demonstrating one specific method of sustainable development that provides rateables to the township, an earned tax revenue stream, statistically lower impact on the school system and a reasonable return on investment for the ultimate developer. You may read the entire study at:

www.preservepennhurst.org/Uploads/PPHUploads/PdfUpload/CDC_0916_final_report.pdf

What is noteworthy about the proposal is that when applying appropriate resources to professional planning and design, there are development options that the Township and community will find acceptable. The absence of such design plans from the property owner appears to be a major obstacle for the commission to overcome. A sad fact indeed.

The commissioners noted that the current size of East Vincent’s GI and PO zones are disproportionately large, especially when compared to comparable zones in neighboring townships. The goal is likely to have GI and PO at Pennhurst, allowing for zoning change in the current PO / GI tracts. It was noted that doing this could make open space or AG zoning possible north of the PECO lines.

Again, the lack of any planning from the property owner makes the PC’s task difficult when they try to balance the true and current needs of the Township with the petitioner’s request.

It was agreed that Commissioner Bruce Weinsteiger would collect comments individually from the commissioners and collate them for distribution prior to a soon-to-be-scheduled public meeting workshop, consistent with Sunshine Law requirements.

The PC also confirmed that it will be meeting with representatives of Spring City on Sept. 21 to discuss potential Pennhurst zoning changes and examine any effect to Spring City.

As was pointed out by the audience, the PC has a large challenge resolving the many factors involved with the petition. There seemed to be consensus amongst the attendees that the commission was equal to the challenge and wished them well offering any assistance possible.

A final note: Mr. Chakejian and his attorney have yet to respond to the open letter I published on July 29. Just one more fact that speaks for itself.